Writing in the Washington Times, Balint Vazsonyi notes that in a recent New York Times article about the soon-to-be House minority leader, there was not "a single mention of her executive position in the Progressive Caucus, and the latter's ties to the Socialist International."

"Question: If an international organization existed to carry the torch for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and if a person running for minority leader had past or present ties to such an organization, what are the chances the New York Times would find it irrelevant to the matter at hand?" asks Vazsonyi.

"None. Zero. Nada.

"Double standards: Do you remember the Austrian nationalist Joerg Haider? He had no such affiliation. Yet the mere possibility that he might harbor sympathies for National Socialist ideas sufficed to make him, and the country in which he holds office, an international pariah.

"The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.

"For our purposes, it suffices also to observe that members of the U.S. Congress are required to furnish an oath whereby they will preserve, protect, and defend said Constitution.

"DSA/USA, the 'Democratic Socialists of America' are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. They share the symbol of the fist holding the rose, and they share the tasks to be accomplished  in our case, an altogether different America.

"Some time ago  the date is missing from the descriptions  58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it the Progressive Caucus. Their statement of purpose, as well as their membership list, formed an integral part of the dsausa Web site (www.dsausa.org). The membership list appeared on the screen with the continuous background of the fist holding the rose, should anyone have missed the connection with the Socialist International."

After the Washington Times in November 1998 blew the whistle on the so-called "Progressive" Caucus, "action was taken to hide the true nature of the organization, and its membership list was eventually taken off the dsausa Web site."

Vazsonyi continues: "Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, and is now, a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus. Her election as minority leader would firmly establish the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International.

"The U.S. Constitution places no restrictions on political creeds. There is no earthly reason why socialists could not be elected to Congress if the people so choose. There is a question of honesty, though. Candidates for office ought to put their cards on the table."

Vazsonyi continues: "Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, and is now, a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus. Her election as minority leader would firmly establish the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International.

============================================================

That sound you hear is the toilet being flushed on the Dumb-O-Insects.

If the Democrats chose Pelosi then they are truly crazy! Pelosi as a choice means that the cRats get one step closer to becoming like the Whigs or the Anti-Mason Political Parties .....extinct!

Even for a cRat Pelosi is extreme! She represents a region (San Francisco) that (even by Liberal standards) is waaaaaay off the beaten path. And yet they expect her to help their party!

LOL ....i guess the cRats are becoming less like rats and more like Lemmings! Heading off to their ultimate doom in spectacular fashion ....like lemmings to a cliff. After all, chosing Pelosi is tantamount to suicide for the party. She has no knack for deception, no way to obfuscate, she lacks a facade of honesty, and her grasp of verbal gymnastics is atrophied (in essence she lacks the 'attributes' the make a slick cRat). She is just a bad thing waiting to happen for the cRats!

If i were a cRat i would hope that they chose Ford jr from Tn. After all that kid has Clintonesque appeal (Bill not Hillary) and would surely dupe a lot of voters when necessary. He seems well versed in facades and driving points home (even when it is just lip service) as could be seen in his TV interviews. And he is by far more appealing than Pelosi could ever hope to be.

However since i am not a cRat Pelosi is fine with me since by chosing her the cRats will be ensuring their hastened extinction!

in a recent New York Times article about the soon-to-be House minority leader, there was not "a single mention of her executive position in the Progressive Caucus, and the latter's ties to the Socialist International."

Why would the NYT change now? In the '30's an NYT reporter named Walter Duranty, a member of the Communist Party USA, sent dispatches from Russia to the NYT that won him the Pulitzer Prize. Duranty doesn't mention that Stalin is killing Ukrainians by starvation and giving Hitler a lesson in mass murder. No, Duranty paints a "Rosey" picture of Stalins 5 year plan to "Collectivise" the the rich farm land of Russia's Eastern regions.

If the New York Times isn't going to report accurately the fertilization of the Kulaks farms with the flesh of their murdered bodies, why should the Times even mention Pelosi?

Black turnout was down in FL and MD; the Dums, if they were thinking, to energise their base, would have nominated Ford. A smart, young telegenic guy who would have sparked a resurgence of black pride and have proven to be a useful counterweight to the Sharpton/Jackson crowd.

This is really no surprise. The RAT party has always been manipulated by the socialists.

Yeah, but most folk don't know this. They don't REALLY know that these guys are communists/socialists with an agenda to destroy the Constitution and change our form of government. I don't understand why conservative pundits don't harp all over this to expose the creeps.

Your post is interesting. It reminds me that I read somewhere the NYT had a correspondent who was in the thick of the bolshevik revolution. I've always wondered if the NYT published editorials cheering on the murder of Russia's imperail family and the liquidation of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Do you have any information on this?

While many of us were aware of these connections to the DSA, a lot of the newer Freepers may not be, since the names of the members of the Progressive Caucus were removed from the list of members of the DSA on the official web site, along with the explanation of how the Progressive Caucus came into existence and the reason for the use of the term, "progressive".

Now it's 5 years later since your last post. If you're still alive I guess your eating the words of this post. She has become Madame Speaker. She's also 2nd in the line to succession of the Presidency. Hmmmm. I guess they did she did help the party huh? Enjoy the crow.

41
posted on 02/10/2007 10:59:40 PM PST
by mdc76082
(5 years later and I wonder if spetznaz is eating the words)

I'm still alive and kicking, and with a strong enough appetite to eat, swallow and digest crow. Grilled crow, roasted crow, raw crow .....I'm game. It is actually quite funny how words uttered long ago can come back and hit someone, and I am man enough not only to accept that I made a boo-boo but also to find the humor in all of this.

Let me just put it this way ....when i posted that in 2002 I really did not see Pelosi as having a Garter snake's chance at a Pentecostal Revival function, but time has indeed proved me wrong. Pelosi is not only Speaker, but the Democrats have taken over the House and the Senate. If you dredge around FreeRepublic you'll even find some posts I made where I said Hillary's chances of winning the White House were not just improbable but UTTERLY impossible.

Nowadays I have strong (frightful) doubts about that statement, and if you gave me enough alcohol I might even let lose a statement alluding to the fact that she may very well be the most likely presidential winner amongst the people who have thrown in their hats as of now (from both sides).

One year ago (let alone 2002) I would never even have thought of such a thing.

Anyways, I will eat my crow, and I will chew it fine. Although I am taking this as a lesson - a lesson that a LOT can change in a few short years, and a lesson that even pigs can fly with the dexterity of a Swallow and the speed of a Peregrine! A lesson that nothing really is impossible. And a lesson that Hillary may actually become president of these United States of America.

Which is why I am grateful that you reminded me of that post i made in 2002. It is actually a veritable lesson in the ways of the world, if ever there was one.

And it is also a warning. That unless the Republican Party gets its game right, unless it stops being pulled either to the side of the Rinos or the side of the so called 'perfectionists' who have to have EVERY agenda met or they will not vote (personally I find such perfectionists worse than the Rinos), and unless The Party gets back to its conservative roots (and I mean fiscal, not just social while they spend like money was going out of fashion) ....unless that happens, then this country will have Hillary as president. And the thing is, we will probably deserve it. After all, if after several years of a Republican White House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House, we were only left with a fat bill, then something is wrong.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.